Ag. nomination steams greens

When the Obama administration announced that it was nominating a former pesticide lobbyist to be the chief agricultural negotiator in the Office of the United States Trade Representative, it sparked more than the usual Internet chatter.

The nomination of Islam Siddiqui, vice president for science and regulatory affairs at CropLife America, struck an off-key note among environmentalists — and not just because they think pesticides and chemicals are unsafe for humans and detrimental to the environment. Perhaps more important was the sense of betrayal. After all, it was Michelle Obama herself who had demanded a pesticide-free garden for the first family at the White House, suggesting — environmentalists thought — that the Obama administration was sympathetic to their cause.

“We are seriously disheartened by this appointment,” said Katherine Ozer, executive director of the National Family Farm Coalition, which represents family farmers. “While we have been encouraged by the first lady and USDA’s promotion of sustainable agriculture and local food, Siddiqui’s role will undermine those goals both here and abroad by promoting our current broken, chemical-intensive, industrial-agriculture model.”

The Pesticide Action Network, which documents what it says are the hazardous impacts of pesticides on crop production, farm animals and humans, said Siddiqui’s nomination last month called into question “just how committed the Obama administration is to promoting sustainable agriculture and reducing hunger in the developing world.”

Siddiqui is responsible for regulatory and international trade issues at CropLife, a trade association representing producers and distributors of “crop protection products” — aka pesticides. He was a registered lobbyist for CropLife from 2001 to 2003, contributed the maximum to Obama’s presidential campaign ($2,300), and held a major fundraiser for him in his McLean, Va., home.

Siddiqui would not comment on his nomination, which goes before the Senate next month, telling POLITICO that he did not want to jeopardize it.

White House spokesman Benjamin LaBolt said Siddiqui was nominated “because of his many years in public service as a scientist and policymaker working on agriculture and trade issues.” He noted, “During his time at USDA, Dr. Siddiqui led the first phase of development for national organic natural food standards in the United States.”

Still, the environmental movement was taken aback by his appointment, seeing it as uncharacteristic from a White House that typically was in sync with its agenda. Beyond the White House garden, there is a new emphasis on sustainable agriculture at the Department of Agriculture, green activists say, and they hail the appointment of Kathleen Merrigan as deputy agriculture secretary. As a staffer on the Senate Agriculture Committee, Merrigan helped write the nation’s organic standards.

And environmentalists now are fired up to derail Siddiqui’s nomination. The National Family Farm Coalition and others have been highlighting what they think are disturbing statements he made as a lobbyist for CropLife, while he was Department of Agriculture undersecretary for marketing and regulatory programs, and as a senior agricultural trade adviser in the Clinton administration.

In 1999, for instance, he derided the European Union’s ban on hormone-treated beef. According to Reuters, when the French agriculture minister expressed concern that the hormones could cause cancer in 20 to 30 years, Siddiqui reportedly said of the minister, “He wanted assurances that 30 years from now, nothing would happen. No one in the scientific community can give you that kind of decision.”

That same year, Reuters reported that Siddiqui, then-special assistant for trade to the U.S. agriculture secretary, “expressed concern about possible [genetically modified organism] labeling requirements by Japan when he met senior officials of the Agriculture Ministry in Tokyo. ‘We do not believe that obligatory GMO labeling is necessary, because it would suggest a health risk where there is none. Mandatory labeling could mislead consumers about the safety of these products.’”

While Siddiqui was at CropLife, the company took part closed-door negotiations with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Management and Budget to find ways to permit pesticide testing in children. The firm also was instrumental in securing an exemption for American farmers from the 2006 worldwide ban of the highly controversial chemical methyl bromide, a pesticide that depletes the ozone layer.